Any update based on last year's results? Assuming 1530 SAT and 3.5 GPS from SFS. Any reports from similar students?

A 3.7 or 3.8 has to put you at the top of your class at Sidwell. Doesn't necessarily mean acceptance to an Ivy though. Hooks really matter.

Anonymous wrote:Years ago, I was told the average GPA was around a 3.2

This sounds about right, and the tail gets pretty thin above 3.6 or 3.7.

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of kids at my Big 3 who get into Ivies have hooks. I'd say at least 80%. I don't think GPA matters that much.

Where on earth are you getting a number as high as 80%? Further, the Scattergrams that I have seen (brought home by my kids) show the grade and test score correlations that you would expect for the most selective schools; highly selective schools pull from highest strata of GPAs.

Years ago, I was told the average GPA was around a 3.2

Are there a fair number of 3.8 kids at these schools? (Ours is not one.) Would that generally be top 10%? top 5%? Wish we knew....

Not all legacy kids get in, but I've definitely seen hooked 3.5 gap kids get in over unhooked 3.8 kids. Hooks matter for the Ivies.

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of kids at my Big 3 who get into Ivies have hooks. I'd say at least 80%. I don't think GPA matters that much.

Hooks help but so do grades. My hooked (child of alum) 3.6 kid was accurately told that he would probably not get in as there were legacy kids with higher gpas applying to the same school. Not told not to apply (actually encouraged to try) but told not to count on it.

The vast majority of kids at my Big 3 who get into Ivies have hooks. I'd say at least 80%. I don't think GPA matters that much.

Back to original topic . . . would appreciate any more hard current data on where a 3.5 Big 3 unhooked kid ends up getting into college. Thank you to those who have posted such info so far. (And to the poster who said perhaps incomplete info had been reported about this year's acceptances at top schools, were you referring to 3.5ish GPA kids, or just overall?)

I understand your point. I just think it made everything seem so crass and did not given enough credit to how important a Sidwell college counselor was to encouraging my son to find schools where he could really be himself, and not to worry about every grade so much. Its not about highly selective colleges, its about getting into colleges where he can grow and explore. Some of those colleges are selective and some are not.

I'm the anti-packaging poster. Sounds like I hit a nerve. To respond to your comments, the competitive nature of the admissions process comes as no surprise to me, particularly since I've been an alum interviewer for my undergrad school, which is ranked in the top 5 by USNWR. What does astonish me, though, is the belief that some parents at Sidwell cling to that the school gets kids into highly selective colleges by "positiioning" them. It smacks of elitism and is completely at odds with Quaker values. What happened to letting your life speak?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of what you get at places like Sidwell is the benefit of an intimate institution that is designed to tease out that which is different and "exceptional" in every student. The small student body and diversity of activities allows each student to find his/her individual niche and develop his/her talents. Positioned with an individualized and intimate knowledge of the student after four years (and in some cases 14 years), the school can then effectively package the candidate to colleges and advocate in a non-generic manner. Does this formula always work? No. But it can often help to have the candidate jump off the page, as others have said.

I've had 3 kids go through Sidwell and the college counselors don't "package" kids. It's true that many admissions staffers know the school well, so a 3.5 kid with top grades in the toughest courses, strong recommendations reflecting this, and 1 or maybe 2 strong ECAs (which can be very pedestrian -- e.g., varsity athlete/team captain; newpaper editor) will have a good shot at some very selective schools. But, the counselors don't know the kids "intimately" -- they meet them in the middle of junior year, read their teacher recommendations and do their best to write positive school recommendations; that's hardly "positioning and packaging."

The care taken to develop a consistent narrative by gathering broad inputs is very much "packaging" when you compare it to what you get at a big public school. Our experience has been very different than yours.

How's that Kool-Aid?

Just fine, thanks. It worked for my family.

Ah -- well, good for you! Our kids got into top schools on their own merit, no packaging needed. But then we valued the school for the education and Quaker values, not the gamesmanship and illusion of exclusivity.

NP here. You sound like Clarence Thomas denying the benefits of affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of what you get at places like Sidwell is the benefit of an intimate institution that is designed to tease out that which is different and "exceptional" in every student. The small student body and diversity of activities allows each student to find his/her individual niche and develop his/her talents. Positioned with an individualized and intimate knowledge of the student after four years (and in some cases 14 years), the school can then effectively package the candidate to colleges and advocate in a non-generic manner. Does this formula always work? No. But it can often help to have the candidate jump off the page, as others have said.

I've had 3 kids go through Sidwell and the college counselors don't "package" kids. It's true that many admissions staffers know the school well, so a 3.5 kid with top grades in the toughest courses, strong recommendations reflecting this, and 1 or maybe 2 strong ECAs (which can be very pedestrian -- e.g., varsity athlete/team captain; newpaper editor) will have a good shot at some very selective schools. But, the counselors don't know the kids "intimately" -- they meet them in the middle of junior year, read their teacher recommendations and do their best to write positive school recommendations; that's hardly "positioning and packaging."

The care taken to develop a consistent narrative by gathering broad inputs is very much "packaging" when you compare it to what you get at a big public school. Our experience has been very different than yours.

How's that Kool-Aid?

Just fine, thanks. It worked for my family.

Ah -- well, good for you! Our kids got into top schools on their own merit, no packaging needed. But then we valued the school for the education and Quaker values, not the gamesmanship and illusion of exclusivity.

Further, are you suggesting that because the counseling department gathers input from the choir director and the drama teacher, incorporates it into a set of out-of-school productions done by the student and a proven long-term commitment to several musical instruments, and then makes sure that the student also reflect on his/her interest in performing arts in his/her essays, that this somehow is a "bad thing" and that your kids are somehow more meritorious? Get off your high horse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of what you get at places like Sidwell is the benefit of an intimate institution that is designed to tease out that which is different and "exceptional" in every student. The small student body and diversity of activities allows each student to find his/her individual niche and develop his/her talents. Positioned with an individualized and intimate knowledge of the student after four years (and in some cases 14 years), the school can then effectively package the candidate to colleges and advocate in a non-generic manner. Does this formula always work? No. But it can often help to have the candidate jump off the page, as others have said.

I've had 3 kids go through Sidwell and the college counselors don't "package" kids. It's true that many admissions staffers know the school well, so a 3.5 kid with top grades in the toughest courses, strong recommendations reflecting this, and 1 or maybe 2 strong ECAs (which can be very pedestrian -- e.g., varsity athlete/team captain; newpaper editor) will have a good shot at some very selective schools. But, the counselors don't know the kids "intimately" -- they meet them in the middle of junior year, read their teacher recommendations and do their best to write positive school recommendations; that's hardly "positioning and packaging."

The care taken to develop a consistent narrative by gathering broad inputs is very much "packaging" when you compare it to what you get at a big public school. Our experience has been very different than yours.

How's that Kool-Aid?

Just fine, thanks. It worked for my family.

Ah -- well, good for you! Our kids got into top schools on their own merit, no packaging needed. But then we valued the school for the education and Quaker values, not the gamesmanship and illusion of exclusivity.

Why all of the snide commentary? You want to bring a bunch of your hang-ups into a simple discussion about managing the college process. I am truly sorry that the competitiveness of others in the process has turned you off. If you read the comments carefully- which you obviously have not - you will find nothing more than someone saying a few things:

1. The school provides opportunities for a wide range of kids to distinguish themselves
2. The school takes the time to help nurture these interests
3. The guidance department has a enough time to engage and integrate more than a transcript and board scores into the profile that is presented to colleges


Sorry if the word "packaging" bothers you, but it is a fact of life. When a college admissions department sits down and reviews a folder, they are looking at the whole package.